RE: [Rails-devel] Re: Suggested object model for core generic framework

[Erik V. <eri...@hc...>]

The practical side of it is what kind of code we want to write:
endless checks of booleans or lists being empty or not (all through
getters),
or endless "instanceof" checks. Not sure what I prefer.....

Erik.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rai...@li...=20
> [mailto:rai...@li...] On Behalf Of=20
> Brett Lentz
> Sent: 01 March 2005 23:34
> To: rai...@li...
> Subject: RE: [Rails-devel] Re: Suggested object model for=20
> core generic framework
>=20
> I'm thinking this is probably a good case for creating an=20
> abstract base-class that we can use to derive each of the=20
> special cases from while still inheriting all of the more=20
> "standard" abilities.=20
>=20
> All we need to do is separate out what items are common to=20
> all companies, and which are special cases.
>=20
> I think that some things, like whether a company can own=20
> shares of stock (e.g. 1870), and whether it can't (e.g.=20
> 1830), can be covered by a simple boolean because we'll=20
> already be writing the code to manipulate the stocks=20
> elsewhere, so the only thing the company will need is a=20
> conditional check of the boolean before initializing an=20
> ArrayList to hold the company's stocks.
>=20
> The really deviant stuff, like minor company's ability to=20
> become major companies, or the folding in the shares of=20
> several companies into a single company (e.g. 1856's creation=20
> of the Canadian National Railway) probably need specific=20
> definitions unto themselves. These are the sorts of things=20
> that, IMO, have no business being in the more generic=20
> "default" classes.
>=20
>=20
> ---Brett.
>=20
>=20
> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********
>=20
> On 3/1/2005 at 8:23 PM Erik Vos using eri...@hc... declared:
>=20
> >But what is then the distinguishing feature of a Minor company?
> >Minors come with 1 (1835/37, 18EU), 2 (1854) and 5 (1826,=20
> 1841) shares.
> >Some can convert to major companies (1826), others can merge into
> >new major companies (1835/37, 18EU, 1841) or new minor companies
> >(1854: "local" (1-share) to "major local railway" (2-share)).=20
> >
> >IMHO, the only fundamental division is between companies=20
> that can be traded
> >(i.e. shares can be sold: most if not all of the >1-share companies)
> >and those that can't (most if not all of the 1-share companies).
> >Perhaps that distinction warrants subclassing, but I'm not sure.
> >
>=20
> ********** REPLY SEPARATOR END **********
> This message sent with 100% recycled electrons.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
> Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from=20
> real users.
> Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_ide95&alloc_id=14396&op=3Dick
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>=20
>=20